Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE HIGH SCHOOL, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP. (CRICKET) - PDP/FDP - 58-98B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 8 fixtures are to be removed by Poudre School District, whether voluntarily or by court order or for any reason, then the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment shall be removed as well." Member Bernth seconded the motion. Chairman Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion because the process was followed. He stated that he empathized with the neighbors' concerns. Member Craig asked staff to look at the flush -mounting, stealth designs for the Fall Land Use Code revisions. She stated concern about the amount of space being taken up by the ground equipment. She asked Ms. Williams to check with the neighbors in attendance to confirm their presence on the mailing list. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Lind Property — Overall Development Plan Project Description: Request for an Overall Development Plan for a 172.61-acre mixed -use residential development. The site is located north of County Road 52 and east of County Road 11. The site is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, Current Planning, gave the staff presentation. He spoke about the Master Street Plan that calls for two north -south collectors. The plan provides those although not in the exact location illustrated on the Master Street Plan. He discussed surrounding development and alternate compliance issues. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the contiguity requirement, which states that a development needs to be contiguous to existing urban development. None of the properties, which are adjacent to this site and could create contiguity, are yet developed. Other issues include the lack of required connections along the Northeast part of the property. The applicant is proposing a pedestrian -only crossing (as opposed to a full bike/vehicle/pedestrian crossing) that would link to the park. Another issue is the alignment of the connections along the west side of the property. One connection aligns with Serramonte Drive and does not meet the spacing requirement but staff requested that it be located this way. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 7 Tim Heinet, the Radio Frequency Engineer for Cricket, stated that the type of antenna is a dual -pole antenna. It affects the performance negatively, especially to the south. Another site, probably around Drake and Taft Hill, would need to be added to assist with coverage. In order to address the neighbors concerns, they would be willing to flush - mount the antennas to the pole. This would not be considered a stealth design since the antennas would not be hidden completely. There would be about an 8 to 12 inch offset between the antenna and the pole to allow for the mounting brackets. He offered this as a design change for the pole. Member Bernth asked if Wayne and Julie Baumann were on the notification list. He also stated concern over the fact that there may have only been two lighted games at the ballfield this year. He added that the wireless telecommunication issue may need to be discussed at a worksession due to the volume of applications. Ms. Williams stated that Wayne and Julie Baumann; at 408 S. Impala was not on the mailing list and therefore must just be outside the 500-foot radius. Chairman Gavaldon asked Mr. Baumann to point out his home on the site map. He asked Mr. Eckman if the possibility of the 'one antenna' statement ought to be explored. Mr. Eckman replied that he would not recommend looking at the issue. The decision should be made based on the criteria found in the Land Use Code. If it turns out to be a violation of that agreement, it could be enforced later. He also added that the Code allows for other forms of notice other than the 500-foot mailing — posting and publishing. The mailing notice is beyond the legal requirement but is done as a courtesy. The Code states that failure to mail the notices does not affect the validity of the hearing. The legal obligations are covered through the posting and publishing. Member Torgerson asked if it would be alright for the Board to make a motion with a condition that is not necessarily required by the Code. Mr. Eckman replied that since the applicant offered the flush -mount option, there is no problem in posing that as a condition. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Poudre High School Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, P.D.P., File #58-9813, with the conditions that flush -mounted technology as described by the applicant's engineer be implemented and that "Approval of the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, as a co - location on an existing ballfield light fixture, is conditioned on the fact of the ballfield light fixtures remaining as the principal use. If the ballfield light Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 6 Member Craig asked about the pole at Rocky Mountain High School that is strong enough to co -locate. Planner Grubb replied that is a lattice tower, which is considerably stronger than the type of poles at Poudre High School. He added that the towers at City Park Ballfield were designed for both lights and wireless telecommunications equipment. They are also much larger than the poles at Poudre. Member Craig asked why the poles at French Field were capable of co -location when they are older than the ones at Poudre. Chairman Gavaldon replied that the French Field lights were designed as stadium lights and they hold more light banks than the poles at Poudre. Member Carpenter asked about the notification process for the project. Planner Grubb replied that the notification radius is 500 feet. Tara Williams, Current Planning, stated that between 400 and 500 letters were sent out, about 75 or 80 of which were returned for incorrect addresses. Member Torgerson asked if we typically get that many letters returned. Ms. Williams replied that we do not and that all three high school lists had numerous returned mailings. All of the lists were from the same applicant. Many of the addresses were apartments, which may change ownership more rapidly than other residences. Mr. Dewhirst stated that the addresses came from the Larimer County Assessor's Office. He stated that some changes could be made to the antennas to make them look better. They did not want to bring up this possibility because the other two carriers in the location were not required to do it and the antennas do not perform as well with this different style. He stated that when antennas are placed inside a structure that looks like a flagpole, the number of antennas drops from 12 to 3. Those antennas do not perform as well. Basically, it would be three antennas flush -mounted to the top of the pole. There would be very little horizontal separation from the end of the antennas to the actual tower. This design would likely eliminate most of the aesthetic concerns the neighbors are expressing. Planner Grubb asked for a picture or spec sheet on those antennas. Mr. Dewhirst replied that he did not have that. This would be a large concession for Cricket. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 5 Member Craig asked if Cricket had considered co -locating with either of the poles that currently house wireless equipment. Mr. Dewhirst replied that the other poles could not structurally handle other antennas. The construction project manager stated that the poles were not designed to carry more than what is already present. Member Craig asked if they had considered using the building, as suggested by one of the neighbors. The construction project manager stated that the building is too low to meet the radio frequency requirements for the signals. Member Craig stated her concern about the land taken up by the ground equipment and asked how big 3,000 square feet is. Planner Grubb stated that 3,000 square feet is about the size of a large single-family home. Member Craig asked about the history of the statement that the neighbors were told regarding only one pole be fitted with wireless equipment. Charlotte Plaut replied that Ken Forest with the Poudre School District made the statement. Member Craig stated her concern over the possibility of that statement being made. Chairman Gavaldon asked if one of the existing poles could be replaced with a stronger pole in order to make it structurally sound enough to allow other carriers. Mr. Dewhirst replied that could be done. Chairman Gavaldon asked what the poles were primarily designed for. The construction project manager replied that the poles were designed to carry large lighting structures and one other lighting array or wireless equipment. Planner Grubb stated that he could not find any information in the file regarding any statements or promises that were made regarding having only one pole with wireless equipment on it. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 4 CITIZEN INPUT Julie and Wayne Baumann, 408 S. Impala Drive, stated that they see all the towers on the ballfield. They stated that they never received notice of the project and that when the lights originally went up, the neighbors were told that only one antenna would be installed on the lights and now there are two with this proposal for a third. They stated their opposition of the proposal. Charlotte Plaut, 2510 W. Mulberry Street, stated that her backyard adjoins the Poudre High School ballfield. The wireless equipment makes the light poles seem much more intrusive than they do otherwise would without the equipment. She stated that the primary use of the poles was not to light the field, adding that Poudre had only two lighted games this year. She stated that the primary use of the poles was the telecommunications equipment. She stated that the neighbors were originally told that only one telecommunications tower would be installed and that the City would only allow co -location on existing poles. She stated that their property values went down when the light poles went up. She stated her opposition to the project. George Williams, 212 S. Hollywood Street, stated his opposition to the project and questioned the meaning and intent of the co -location policy. He suggested alternative locations for the equipment, such as along the auditorium wall of the school. He asked what the notification area was for the project. He stated that the 500-foot limit was not appropriate for a structure of this size. He asked what the intent of the co -location policy was and how the School District is involved since either the City or County does not govern it. Mr. Dewhirst stated that the notification radius is 500 feet and that most neighbors seemed to have problems with the light poles themselves rather than the wireless equipment. One suggestion at the neighborhood meeting was to erect a larger tower that could hold all the antennas and take down the light poles. He stated that the Code asks that wireless equipment be co -located on an existing structure and this proposal does that. He stated that the application is in compliance with the Land Use Code. Member Torgerson asked what 'stealth technology' is. Mr. Dewhirst replied that that term indicates that the wireless facility tower blends in with the environment in which it exists. Member Torgerson asked if a more linear arrangement could happen on a flagpole or light pole. Mr. Dewhirst replied that was possible. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 3 Planner Grubb replied that wireless equipment is only considered a co -location if it is placed upon a structure that is primarily used for another purpose. If the lights are taken off the pole, that is no longer the principal use. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney suggested adding the condition to an approval motion to clarify the issue. Drew Dewhirst, Cricket Communications, gave the applicant's presentation. He discussed the site selection process for the carrier and stated that the Poudre High School site seemed logical because two other light poles at the ballfield already have wireless equipment on them. The antennas will be located 98 feet up the 102-foot pole and the ground equipment will be located at the base of the pole surrounded by an 8- foot tall chain -link fence and covered by a chain -link `roof.' Member Craig asked about the size and enclosure of the ground equipment The construction project manager for Cricket Communications responded that the base station (BTS equipment) would be approximately 15' by 18' and would sit on a non - penetrating steel platform and would be surrounded by 8' chain link fence with a chain link structure over the top. The fencing will be camouflaged with a green mesh. Member Craig asked if this was comparable to existing ground equipment on the other poles. The construction project manger replied that the proposed equipment is a little smaller. Member Craig asked about the structure of the roof. The construction project manger replied that it would probably have about a 3:12 slope allowing balls to roll off. Member Torgerson asked if the BTS units could be located in vaults. The construction manager replied that they could be but would not be for this project. Planner Grubb showed some slides of the site with many `before and after' shots. He stated that ground equipment takes up approximately 3,000 square feet. Chairman Gavaldon asked for the neighborhood meeting minutes from the Poudre High School neighborhood meeting. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 19, 2001 Page 2 Project: Poudre High School — Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, P.D.P., File #58-98B Project Description: Request to co -located wireless telecommunications equipment on an existing 102-foot tall ballfield light pole. The proposed equipment is located at 201 North Impala Drive at the Poudre High School baseball field. Recommendation: Approval Hearino Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He noted that the application is for co -location on an existing structure — a light pole in the Poudre High School ballfield. He added that neighbors expressed concern about the project. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Chairman Gavaldon asked about a previously discussed lawsuit that involved the wireless equipment being dismantled if the light pole were to be dismantled. Planner Grubb replied that he had that condition in writing. This condition was placed upon the application for US West wireless that was approved on April 20, 2000. "Approval of the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, as a co -location on an existing ballfield light fixture, is conditioned on the fact of the ballfield light fixtures remaining as the principal use. If the ballfield light fixtures are to be removed by Poudre School District, whether voluntarily or by court order or for any reason, then the Wireless Telecommunications Equipment shall be removed as well." Planner Grubb stated that even if the application were approved without this condition and the lights were removed, the principal use would change from lights to wireless equipment. Therefore, the application would no longer be considered a co -location and the applicant would need to reapply. Member Torgerson asked if it would be a non -compliant use if the Code changes. r Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Gavaldon, Members Meyer and Colton were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Jones, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Virata, Vosburg, Bracke, Schlueter, Wray, Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (CONTINUED), May 3 and May 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. Resolution PZ01-04 - Easement Dedication 3. #11-971 Fort Collins High School - Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 4. #58-98B Poudre High School - Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP (Pulled for Discussion by Staff) 5. #11-97H Rocky Mountain High School - Wireless Telecommunications Equipment, PDP 6. #52-82F Poudre School District - South Bus Terminal Expansion - Site Plan Advisory Review 7. #13-99A Fossil Creek Wetlands 2"d - Annexation and Zoning Discussion Agenda: 8. #39-94 Lind Property - Overall Development Plan Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1 (Less the November 16, 2000 Minutes), 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.